"Treason" by Ann Coulter

"Anyone know of any retractions she printed?"

Her retract anything?? are you kidding?? heck no! She is far to anal to admit when she has stepped over the line of decency.

 

That doesn't make doing what she suggests any better.

No it doesn't, but it makes the suggestion itself much more understandable than if it was written last year and to say it doesn't would lead me to suspect that you are looking for a reason to not like Coulter even more.

 

No it doesn't, but it makes the suggestion itself much more understandable than if it was written last year and to say it doesn't would lead me to suspect that you are looking for a reason to not like Coulter even more.

Its not that I'm looking for reason to dislike her more. I'm worried about the effects her columns and books have on those around her.

For instance, check out the opening post on this thread. Its frightening and seemes completely in line with Coulter views praising her book "Treason"

Although written in anger, words do get sent out and can be adopted by people like TrueJedi (the first poster) for years.

People like TrueJedi in turn have the potential to infect others (particularly the young) with their biased and radical opinions.

It'd be nice to think that many people are willing to entertain new facts and opinions as they get older but often that's not the case. (look at most of our parents) For people to latch onto an opinions like Coulter's and those in her books is frightening because these people affect the society we live in.

I dislike Coulter because she spreads, bigotry, volence, intolernce, fanatacism and hatred.

I dislike her even more because there are people out there who will be naive enough to buy it and base votes and their outlooks on life on it.

And unfortunately sometimes, those people get into powerful positions which has disastourous consequences for the innocent.

So to sum up, people like Coulter disgust me with their views and worry me with their influence.

Look at TrueJedi. He thinks Coulter is perfectly fine.

How many more are like him and how many more will they create?

 

I dislike Coulter because she spreads, bigotry, volence, intolernce, fanatacism and hatred.

I dislike her even more because there are people out there who will be naive enough to buy it and base votes and their outlooks on life on it.

And unfortunately sometimes, those people get into powerful positions which has disastourous consequences for the innocent.

So to sum up, people like Coulter disgust me with their views and worry me with their influence.

This whole segmant and most of the entire post is my exact opinion of Moore. The difference is Moore has a much more charismatic hold on our youth. And is watched by people who believe him to be honest and reasonable, which niether Moore nor Coulter are.

Coulter is read mainly by partisians and adults.

Does your opinion of Coulter also reflect your opinion of Moore?

 

J-Rod - I admire and appreciate your open and balanced view of both Coulter and Moore.

The reason Moore has a greater hold on the youth is twofold: Liberals are hip, and he makes movies. I'll admit -- Number of Michael Moore films seen, 2. Amount of Ann Coulter read, 0. She just can't be packaged and sold quite the way Moore can. (Edit: I think. As I say, I've never actually read her. If she's equally funny and equally palatable, then get her a film deal and see what happens.)

What you Righties need to do is find someone -- I was going to say someone who's cool, but Michael Moore is not. So I'm not sure what qualities, exactly are necessary. Anyway, someone funny, who's a brilliant self-promoter, and will make an entertaining movie. And you need to make sure it's not publicized that that person's a Republican. Then, get a product in theaters and see what happens.

By the way, it's going to have to be someone less out there than Moore. Hard Liberal ranting can get tiresome, but Hard Conservative ranting is just plain funny. And I mean funny in a ridiculous sort of way. So you're going to have to have someone tending a bit toward moderacy to avoid inadvertent self-parody.

-Paul

 

Here's the latest column from the lady this forum roast is for:

THE LOSS THAT KEEPS ON GIVING!

As we wait for CBS to concede the election, Democrats are claiming Kerry lost because Americans are stupid -- and if there's one thing voters respond to, it's crude insults.
This is not only the first step of a brilliant strategy to win the red states back, but also inconsistent with the Democrats' theory that Bush was an illegitimate president for the last four years because Democratic voters in Florida were too dumb to follow an arrow to the circle by Al Gore's name. How stupid were the alleged Gore-supporters who couldn't figure out how to cast a vote in the 2000 election?
Using classical Marxist thinking, liberals can't fathom how issues like abortion and gay marriage could trump ordinary people's economic interests -- which liberals axiomatically assume are furthered by the Democrats' offers of government assistance. Democrats are saying to voters: "How can you be so stupid to subordinate your own selfish economic interests to "moral values," the betterment of the country and the general welfare of people you don't even know?"
It can only be false consciousness. If liberals think the Bush vote was composed of illiterate homophobes who fear women in the workplace, perhaps the Democrats should start demanding literacy tests to vote.

Garry Wills -- who fills in "occupation" on his federal tax return with "self-hating Catholic" -- denounced America in The New York Times as an unenlightened nation full of people who believe "more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution."
By contrast, apparently, "enlightened" people believe in the Aborted Birth more fervently than they believe in national defense. And just in the interest of fairness here, Garry: At least there's some documentation on the Virgin Birth story. For people who believe so fervently in evolution, these Bush mandate-deniers sure are resistant to it on a personal level.
On the same day, on the same nuanced Times editorial page, both Wills and Maureen Dowd wrote that Kerry was defeated by a "jihad" of Christians. The jihadists, according to Wills, were driven by "fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity." Dowd said they were "a devoted flock of evangelicals, or 'values voters,' as they call themselves ... opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."
Finally -- a jihad liberals oppose!
Speaking of gay marriage, as long as liberals are so big on discussing "mandates" and whether Bush has one (they say he does not), I think the one thing we can all agree on is that there is definitely a "mandate" against gay marriage. In fact, a clear majority of us are uncomfortable with the word "mandate" because it sounds like Wayne asking Stephen out for dinner and a movie.

Reacting to Bush's re-election in that calm, reasoned way we have come to expect of liberals, they are running to psychotherapists, threatening to move to Canada and warning of a fascist police state -- including their fear of a Hollywood "blacklist." (Now you understand how the myth of McCarthyism began, red states!)
One depressed Kerry voter committed suicide at Ground Zero. Meanwhile, the entire Democratic Party is also contemplating political suicide by making Howard Dean its next chairman.
Some Democrats are so despondent they've contemplated (hushed whisper) prayer. They're just not sure if they're supposed to pray to Bill Clinton or to their "Higher Power."
The day after the election, documentary filmmaker and Upper West Side denizen Mitch Wood told The New York Times: "Watching my kids this morning, going down the street, flicking things in the air, jumping around, I wondered, are they going to have that sense of freedom that I had growing up?"
As if on cue, a commercial jetliner piloted by Islamofascist hijackers did NOT crash in front of Wood at this point, killing his entire family instantly, in silen

 

Darth_Paul, you are so right about self-parody. And maybe that is why Ann Coulter doesn't take herself as seriously as Moore takes himself: she would come off as unintentionaly funny.

As she writes and speaks, she is halarious and intentionaly so.

EDIT: Nightowl showed a brilliant colume. Funny, sharp and biting, with just enough facts to make me go "Yeah! So there!!!"

 

Does your opinion of Coulter also reflect your opinion of Moore?

As a communicator? More or less. The only difference is that Moore is smart enough to voice his opinion in the form of supposed questions which makes people believe that they're coming to the conclusions on their own. He's more subtle whereas Coulter is more direct. Both are biased but I think one's a smarter approach to winning people over regardless of ultimate end.

The people also view him as a bit more of a hero because he's representing the side that isn't in power.
American psychology tends to slightly favor the underdog in conflicts. "Rage against the machine" and all that.


The most accurate summary would be to say that:

I agree with Moore's ends but not his means (i.e. exaggerting facts, manipulating reality).

With Coulter I don't agree with the means she uses (braoad generalizations, encouraging intolerance) or the ends she wants (i.e. forced conversion, killing foreign leaders, carpet bombing civilians, etc.)

I respct one a bit more for being a better manipulator but I don't like either.


As far as Coulter not taking things seriously goes, I'm gonna paraphrase Roger Ebert speaking about Team America.

"I wasn't offended by the movie's content so much as by its nihilism. At a time when the world is in crisis and the country faces an important election, the response of Coulter is to sneer at any Democrat who takes the current world situation seriously. They may be right that some of us are puppets, but they're wrong that all of us are fools, and dead wrong that it doesn't matter."

 

The only difference is that Moore is smart enough to voice his opinion in the form of supposed questions which makes people believe that they're coming to the conclusions on their own.

Doesn't that make him more dangerous than Coulter?

And ask yourself this...If he has to exagerate and twist facts to come to the same comclusion you have, is it actually the right conclusion?

 

"I agree with Moore's ends but not his means (i.e. exaggerting facts, manipulating reality). "

Indeed, that is a very interesting statement.

 

And ask yourself this...If he has to exagerate and twist facts to come to the same comclusion you have, is it actually the right conclusion?

The common man often does not have the benefit of being in possession of the facts. Nor does he live in a world where such facts would seem commonplace enough to be acceptable.

For example. A die-hard christian may not be able to see how killing is ever necessary. A solider on the front lines of some terrible conflict may understand completely.

You can only sell to the public what they are psychologically capable of believing which is often determined by what they want to believe.

And so methodologies and reasons that are understandable to the common man are employed because true explanations are often complicated and grey in nature.

Why risk alienating people with complicated truths when a simple lie will get them to do the same thing?

Hypothetical Example:
A man smells a poisonous gas in a building and being an expert can recognize it for what it is.
Scenario 1:
He tries to convince everyone to leave but they don't know him. Have no reason to trust him and are unable to recognize the danger for themselves.
By attempting to present the truth he's not getting what we wants:To get everyone out of the building.
Scenario 2:
The man yells FIRE and people bolt. Not exactly true, but it gets him what he wanted and much more efficiently.

The judgement of means and the ends they work for (especially in the realm of politics) must often be judged seperately.

If you're looking for a more political example.

A land is dying from lack of resources. Next door is a land full of them.

To get the most efficient result do you...

1)Tell the people we have no choice but to invade if we are to survive?
2)Make up a story about how they are planning to attack you so that you can justify a pre-emptive invasion in supposed self-defense?

Same end. Different means, one of which will get far more support if you can sell it. People don't like thinking of themselves as villains but people will outright refuse to be supposed victims.

I dislike seeing people like Moore and Coulter manipulate others but I also know sometimes its necessary to get the masses in motion.

However I tend to support Moore's ends wheras I don't support Coulter's.

Moore is the disgusting mercenary for hire who happens to be working for my side.
Coulter is the disgusting mercenary for hire who happens to be working for the other side.

So based on ultimate end desired, I naturally favor Moore's victory though I dislike both.